On 02/22/2013 01:08 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 10:37 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: > >> According to the testing result, I could not agree this purpose of >> wake_affine() benefit us, but I'm sure that wake_affine() is a terrible >> performance killer when system is busy. > > (hm, result is singular.. pgbench in 1:N mode only?)
I'm not sure about how pgbench implemented, all I know is it will create several instance and access the database, I suppose no different from several threads access database (1 server and N clients?). There are improvement since when system busy, wake_affine() will be skipped. And in old world, when system is busy, wake_affine() will only be skipped if prev_cpu and curr_cpu belong to different nodes. Regards, Michael Wang > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/